Killing Us Gently

The Crass Vigilance of The Soft Drink Molochs
and Their Slow Throttling of the American Public For Loaves and Fishes
by James L. Secor
www.dissidentvoice.org
April 24, 2006

The
American Beverage Association (ABA) sells some of the most popular
non-alcoholic beverages in the world. Carbonated soft drinks make up 73%
of that total. Americans spend roughly $93 billion annually on refreshment
beverages (about $357/person). The ABA believes that all beverages are
part of a healthy, balanced lifestyle and helps this along by producing
various sized beverages so as to incorporate different, that is larger,
serving portions into diets.

That is what the ABA
says about itself. Let's stop here for a moment. $93 billion in
refreshment beverages. $93 billion -- why? What has Americans hooked?
Caffeine, yes, but the ABA sells 7-Up and Sprite, which contain no
caffeine, if we believe the PR and product labeling (which the ABA is
fighting to get rid of). But even more disturbing is the contention that
soft drinks are part of a healthy diet. Which healthy diet? Whose --
Atkins'? Other than the ABA, who else makes the same claim? But it
sounds good, so people believe it. After all, the ABA is an authority.
In reality, this claim about soft drinks being part of a healthy diet is
specious.

What are these
profits? With approximately 122.5 billion servings/year (or 471 soft
drinks/person/year), the soft drink industry rakes in about $93 billion.
Of course, no mention is made of the fact that 43% of those profits are
from government subsidies, what is colloquially called "corporate
welfare." Fifty-seven percent of $93 billion is about $53 billion. How
does a $53 billion/year business rate a subsidy when so many Americans are
in dire straits? How is it that the corporate sector can receive welfare
when such subsidies are shameful for the individual and considered a
wasteful expense?

One of the answers
lies with bought friends in the government: our Senators and
Representatives. In 2005, however, things became even more secure: the ABA
hired, as Senior Vice President for Communications, Kevin Keane who was
Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs at Health and Human Services (HHS).
He was an advisor to Tommy Thompson. He was hired to direct the strategic
communications program, read propaganda. That is, the ABA managed to
acquire an inside touch. Mr. Keane can help science along in support of
the ABA, as Mr. Bush helps science support his rapacious programs.

Another answer lies
in corn subsidies and sugar tariffs.

What this means is
that Coke and Pepsi's profit margins are supported by government taxes,
thanks to corn grower subsidies. A subsidy is used to help the farmer make
up the loss between cost to produce and higher marketing costs. That is,
if a farmer spends $1 to produce one bushel of corn but market value is 80
cents, the government makes up the other 20 cents -- plus a little more so
the farmer can make a profit. Thus, there is complicity with the
Department of Agriculture. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is the biggest
player in this market and the most prominent recipient of corporate
welfare, which costs the government billions but people tens of billions
(in higher prices and higher taxes). While $1 of corn sweetener profits
costs you, the consumer, $10, the government paid $49 billion in corn
subsidies from 1995-2004.

ADM buys 12% of the
nation's corn and turns it into High Fructose Corn Syrup.

We are bilked
because part of the money to pay these subsidies comes from our taxes. We
are, in effect, paying twice to drink a Coke or Pepsi. This means that
buying corn and making High Fructose Corn Syrup -- not a naturally
occurring substance -- is far cheaper than using sugar. Why? Sugar
tariffs. A tariff is a tax placed on some substance or other that is
imported. Sugar. Sugar tariffs give us $2.25/lb of sugar; without the
tariff that would perhaps be $1/lb. Thus, by way of putting a ceiling on
homegrown sugar production, the tariffs inflate the cost of sugar and
deflate the cost of corn, which means importing more sugar. So, ADM
prefers to buy excessive corn at excessively low prices. This equals not
only great savings but indecent profits. In order for ADM and the ABA to
wreak obscene profits, we must pay more.

How does this corn
subsidy-sugar tariff affect the soft drink behemoths? A six cent increase
in sweetener amounts to $6.1 billion; a one cent increase to, $1.2
billion; a 1/10 of a cent increase, $122.5 million. Fructose is
about 75% sweeter than cane sugar (sucrose), so Coke and Pepsi don't have
to use very much fructose to attain an equal sweetness. But the cola
goliaths found a way to concentrate -- make stronger -- fructose. To
create sucrose's sweetness an even smaller amount of High Fructose
Corn Syrup is needed. Although fructose is naturally occurring, High
Fructose Corn Syrup is not. Creating more of a conundrum is the fact that
most all of the corn used to make High Fructose Corn Syrup is genetically
modified, seedlings that ADM sold and then buys back as ripe corn to make
into High Fructose Corn Syrup. And herein lies a problem: the ABA claims
that High Fructose Corn Syrup is natural.

This "naturally
occurring" sugar substance -- High Fructose Corn Syrup -- is the ABA's
attack on science and public concern over the ill effects of High Fructose
Corn Syrup:

Obesity and diabetes
are serious health problems in the U.S. that deserve meaningful and
effective interventions, not the shallow gestures advocated today. Current
Nutrition Facts Panels and labels on soft drinks already provide consumers
with key information they need to make the beverage choices that are right
for them, including information on calories, sugar, caffeine, sodium, and
other contents. To ask the FDA for warnings labels on soft drinks, or any
food products that contain caloric sweeteners, patronizes consumers and
lacks common sense. Where would such a food “hit list” stop? Even skim
milk and thousands of other food products could potentially fit into a
CSPI labeling scheme because of the sugars contained in those products.
(Press release of 13 July 2005)

Warnings about
possible dangers to our health are "patronizing"? It lacks "common sense"?
Skim milk "and thousands of other food products" (many of them sweetened
with High Fructose Corn Syrup) could potentially fit into a CSPI "labeling
scheme"? Why no mention of High Fructose Corn Syrup? I can't answer these
ridiculous questions but I can answer the ABA's question about where "such
a food 'hit list'" would stop: at the healthy foods--which means all foods
not manufactured by the ABA, ADM, Cargill, Monsanto and Atria.

Why would the ABA
feel constrained to make such erroneous assertions if there was nothing
harmful about High Fructose Corn Syrup? In 2004, the ABA released nine
articles discrediting scientific evidence of the problems with High
Fructose Corn Syrup. Why is the ABA so defensive if High Fructose Corn
Syrup is "safe and natural"? (Cf. press release of 2 August 2005)

The scientific
evidence, the medical evidence, is that High Fructose Corn Syrup
causes obesity and leads to type 2 diabetes. This trend in obesity in
America correlates to the ABA's beginning of sweetening their drinks with
High Fructose Corn Syrup in 1995. Such reports can be found in The
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Medical Study News,
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism and The
Journal of the American Medical Association. But for the ABA, the
problem is lifestyle. In the ABA's sophistry, they quote from The
European Journal of Epidemiology (2003:18): "Contrary to popular
belief, data do not suggest a higher proportion of sucrose in the diet
increases risk for type 2 diabetes independent of body fatness." Excuse
me, Kathleen Dezio (ABA spokeswoman who penned this press release of 24
August 2004), but the medical profession isn't faulting sucrose:
the problem is High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Here, too, is
another addictive substance: sugars. If sugars are addictive, a highly
concentrated sugar would be more addictive, as big tobacco found with
nicotine. Not an untoward parallel, for Phillip Morris is a major player
in the food racket -- under the name of Atria. (Cf.
www.navdanya.org) As may be remembered, Phillip Morris was the
corporation that knowingly peddled addictive substances in the form of
cigarettes, including to children. Aren't the ethics here a little slim?
Phillip Morris is also the largest producer of foods that stock the
shelves of supermarkets, foods high in High Fructose Corn Syrup. This corn
syrup has spread throughout the food supply in the U.S. Here again, we
have an ethics breach: In the mid-1990's, ADM was the object of an FBI
probe into price fixing.

Research shows that
High Fructose Corn Syrup raises triglyceride levels, which increases the
risk of heart disease (triglycerides are fats in the blood). Another study
found that fructose-rich diets have other deleterious effects, including
glucose intolerance, insulin resistance and liver dysfunction. (Richard
Wasnich and Jon Ruckle, Radiunt Research). The increase in diabetes,
particularly early onset diabetes, is certainly related to this new
additive in the American diet. (Cf. "Report of the International Obesity
Task Force of the World Health Organization," New York Times, 31
Oct 2003) Indeed, further research showed an 80% increase in risk of type
2 diabetes when people consumed High Fructose Corn Syrup -- and not in
huge doses. All it took was one soft drink or fruit drink per
day. Walter C. Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health says,
"Anyone who cares about their health or the health of their family would
not consume these beverages." There are even doctors from Yale University
Center backing such reports. (Cf. Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest)

In "Consumption
of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic
of obesity" by George A. Bray, Samara Joy Nielsen and
Barry M. Popkins, the authors found that the consumption of High Fructose
Corn Syrup increased 1000% between 1970 and 1990. In 2000, High Fructose
Corn Syrup represented 42% of all sweeteners. Although HFCS-42 was
initially the only High Fructose Corn Syrup component, by the early
1980's, HFCS-55 had become the major source, constituting 61% of all High
Fructose Corn Syrup in use in 2000. (HFCS-42 is 1.16 times -- 116% -- as
sweet as sucrose; HFCS-55 is 1.28 times as sweet.) Bray, et al., also
found that the increased use of High Fructose Corn Syrup in the U.S.
mirrors the rapid increase in obesity.

However, from the
public health perspective, the question of whether there are other agents
that could trigger the present obesity epidemic must be looked into. These
are such things as reduced levels of physical activity, a decrease in
smoking, increased portion sizes, eating out (and at fast food
restaurants) and changes in the kinds of foods eaten. Nevertheless, the
introduction of High Fructose Corn Syrup and the increased drinking of
soft drinks and other sweetened beverages has led to increases in total
caloric consumption.

Unlike glucose --
the sugar that sucrose turns into during digestion -- fructose does not
stimulate insulin secretion because it bypasses the pancreas. Insulin acts
in the regulation of food intake and body weight. As glucose enters cells
by a transport mechanism that is insulin-dependent in most tissues,
glucose can be metabolized in any cell. In contrast, fructose enters cells
via a transport system that does not depend on insulin. This
transport system is absent from the pancreas and the brain, which
indicates limited entry of fructose into those tissues. Thus, while
glucose provides satiety signals to the brain, as it were, fructose cannot
provide this because it is not transported into the brain. Thus, insulin
appetite control, the sense of being full, is non-existent with fructose
-- or High Fructose Corn Syrup -- use. This suggests that sweetened
beverages enhance overeating, for a higher insulin concentration inhibits
food intake. Thus, the lower insulin concentrations induced by High
Fructose Corn Syrup enhance eating.

Another concern is
that High Fructose Corn Syrup is metabolized in the liver where it is
converted into the chemical backbone of triglycerides (see above). That
is, Havel also attests to High Fructose Corn Syrup bypassing the pancreas
and the sugar-insulin controlled equation.

In the U.S., High
Fructose Corn Syrup is found in almost all foods, including soft drinks,
fruit drinks, candied fruits, canned fruits, dairy desserts, flavored
yogurts, most baked goods, cereals and jellies. Over 60% of the calories
in apple juice comes from fructose. High Fructose Corn Syrup is
ubiquitous. Lists of foods containing High Fructose Corn Syrup can be
obtained from organizations concerned with related allergies; that is,
High Fructose Corn Syrup causes allergies. Yet another unwelcome side
effect. (See also www.foodfacts.info/blog) And to
think... Americans consume about 63 lbs. of High Fructose Corn Syrup
annually.

In the face of all
of this scientific and medical proof of the ill effects of High Fructose
Corn Syrup, the ABA has only misleading, specious press releases... and
government compliance. That is, not only does the ABA not care whether
U.S. citizens sicken and die, neither does the government.

Jim
Secor is
a freelance writer currently living and working in China. He
can be reached at:
znzfqlxskj@gmail.com.